> Part of the issue here depends on how the application finds out addresses > of scope less than global. Link-local addresses don't make sense in > the DNS (and site-local don't make sense in the DNS except when a site > is running a two-faced DNS). > Thus if the application is going to explicitly be configured to use > a less-than global address, or explicitly use some link-local name resolution > protocol, this isn't likely to cause a problem in practise.
I can sort of accept that if you explicitly configure an app to use a limited-scope address, they you deserve whatever you get. however I somehow doubt that the vast majority of Internet users will understand the difference and why choosing an LL or SL address might cause their app to break. also, there are other ways to discover an address besides DNS and explicit configuration - for instance, by looking at a source address of a received message. > And for the applications, such as routing daemons, that communicate using > link-local (multicast) addresses the specification causes the right behavior - > a link-local source address will be used when the destination is link local. I'd certainly consider it acceptable for routing daemons and diagnostic tools to have to explicitly bind to an LL address. But I don't see that as a justification for having the default rules employ limited-scope addresses when a global address is available. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
